Organic Foods No Healthier Than Ordinary Foods

[Ringer]

A short article that surprised me and may surprise some of you.

LONDON (Reuters) – Organic food has no nutritional or health benefits over ordinary food, according to a major study published Wednesday.
Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine said consumers were paying higher prices for organic food because of its perceived health benefits, creating a global organic market worth an estimated $48 billion in 2007.

A systematic review of 162 scientific papers published in the scientific literature over the last 50 years, however, found there was no significant difference.
"A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance," said Alan Dangour, one of the report's authors.
"Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority."

The results of research, which was commissioned by the British government's Food Standards Agency, were published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Sales of organic food have fallen in some markets, including Britain, as recession has led consumers to cut back on purchases.
The Soil Association said in April that growth in sales of organic products in Britain slowed to just 1.7 percent in 2008, well below the average annual growth rate of 26 percent over the last decade, following a plunge in demand at the end of the year.

Organic food is no healthier, study finds - Yahoo! News

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It doesn't really surprise me.

I read the same article; it looks like they only examined the nutritional value of the food. I've always thought that the main motivation to buy organic is to avoid harmful effects from pesticides, not to get extra nutrients.

 

[Storm]

A short article that surprised me and may surprise some of you.

It doesn't really surprise me.

I read the same article; it looks like they only examined the nutritional value of the food. I've always thought that the main motivation to buy organic is to avoid harmful effects from pesticides, not to get extra nutrients.

Pretty much. It's not that organic food is magically superior, it's that it's not laced with poison.

 

[3.14]

People actualy pay for studies of the blatently obvius?

 

[England my lionheart]

Organic is better,especially if you have a Polytunnel but really the best Vegetables are fresh because it does'nt matter whether Organic or not the longer they are out of the ground the less value they have of anything.

 

[Ringer]

Pretty much. It's not that organic food is magically superior, it's that it's not laced with poison.

I suppose you two are probably right. I was under the impression that the way our foods are harvested now that they are not as nutrient-dense as they were at one time. I do what I can to make sure I thoroughly wash the fresh produce I buy in the store as to eliminate as much of the potentially toxic residue. Maybe it doesn't do much good but at least it gives me a bit of peace of mind.

 

[Makaveli]

I always found an organic apple to taste better than a conventional one, and the main motivation for me has been to avoid frankenfoods and poisons. It doesn't surprise me that the nutritional content is relatively the same, seeing as conventional and organic are growing in the same nutrient-depleted soil.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I suppose you two are probably right. I was under the impression that the way our foods are harvested now that they are not as nutrient-dense as they were at one time.

I think that's true, but I think this has mainly been bred into the plant. From what I gather, organic and non-organic farmers generally work with the same varieties of fruits and vegetables. Any problems with nutritive value are still there whether you spray with pesticides or not.

I do what I can to make sure I thoroughly wash the fresh produce I buy in the store as to eliminate as much of the potentially toxic residue. Maybe it doesn't do much good but at least it gives me a bit of peace of mind.

Same here, though we tend to buy organic produce when washing isn't effective at getting rid of the pesticides. Chemicals on anything that gets peeled isn't really much of a worry to me in terms of personal health, though it may be for environmental impact.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

That article is not at all compelling. It doesn't really say anything of value, just some ambiguous language...we don't even know how the research was done. Not to mention the article itself stated that the research was commissioned by the British government's FSA...just waiting for the punchline.

 

[Ringer]

That article is not at all compelling. It doesn't really say anything of value, just some ambiguous language...we don't even know how the research was done. Not to mention the article itself stated that the research was commissioned by the British government's FSA...just waiting for the punchline.

Well, the article states:

A systematic review of 162 scientific papers published in the scientific literature over the last 50 years

They didn't do the research but reviewed the research that was already done. I'm sure with 162 scientific paper over a 50 year period that there were a variety of ways that the research was done. However, I'm not able to comment on the credibility of FSA. I wouldn't think they are a dubious source if their findings were published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

 

[themadhair]

Did you know that homegrown vegetables are far more nutritious that those you buy in the supermarket? Did you know that a homemade pie will be far more nutritious that one bought in the supermarket?

But, curiously, people will still pay over the odds for organic when homegrown stuff and/or produce from a local farm is far better than the stuff in the supermarkets.

 

[Storm]

Did you know that homegrown vegetables are far more nutritious that those you buy in the supermarket? Did you know that a homemade pie will be far more nutritious that one bought in the supermarket?

But, curiously, people will still pay over the odds for organic when homegrown stuff and/or produce from a local farm is far better than the stuff in the supermarkets.

I have a black thumb and my cooking skills are rather limited.

 

[themadhair]

I have a black thumb and my cooking skills are rather limited.

If this guy can do something along this line then so can you:

BBC - Science & Nature - Should I Worry About...?

Homemade vs ready-made Richard decided to compare the nutrients in his homemade cottage pie with the ready-made equivalent. We sent average ready-made cottage pies from each of Britain’s four biggest supermarkets and Richard’s homemade pie to a lab for testing.
The results were clear. The homemade version came top, with the highest levels of protein, iron and zinc.
Many ready-made meals contain additives such as modified maize starch. This is not bad for you but it is essentially used to bulk out food and has little nutritional value. Ready-made products also tend to contain different proportions of key ingredients than homemade products. For example, Richard was shown a chicken, chorizo and potato bake that contained only about 20% chicken and nearly 50% potato. If you made the same dish at home, you would almost certainly include more chicken.
The key is to know how to read labels. If you think a ready meal doesn’t contain enough of the key healthy ingredients, and instead has lots of ingredients you wouldn’t normally find in your kitchen, then why not make your own instead?

 

[Storm]

If this guy can do something along this line then so can you:

Huh?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/shouldiworryabout/additives.shtml

BBC - Science & Nature - Should I Worry About...?

Yeah, I know it's bad, but that does nothing to change my limitations.

 

[Panda]

Huh?

He is a famous UK presenter, mainly from doing Top Gear.

 

[Panda]

Did you know that homegrown vegetables are far more nutritious that those you buy in the supermarket? Did you know that a homemade pie will be far more nutritious that one bought in the supermarket?

But, curiously, people will still pay over the odds for organic when homegrown stuff and/or produce from a local farm is far better than the stuff in the supermarkets.

I have never seen it anywhere that home grown stuff is more nutritious, unless it is just because it is fresher?

However it does taste much nicer.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Well, the article states:
They didn't do the research but reviewed the research that was already done. I'm sure with 162 scientific paper over a 50 year period that there were a variety of ways that the research was done. However, I'm not able to comment on the credibility of FSA. I wouldn't think they are a dubious source if their findings were published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

That sounds good on the surface, but nobody even knows where these "papers" come from or what these "papers" even say. Everybody has "papers"...I have "papers".

I'm sure a lot of people would like to take this article at face value because it makes it easier for them to shop and buy cheap food, but there's no logical conclusion here at all. This article is a retelling of a select group of scientists' summarization of what they found in some "papers", some of which are decades old, apparently...not a point of credibility given how vastly agricultural and scientific methods have changed in the last 50 years.

I just don't see any real information here.

I'm not saying certified "organic" produce is the shiz; homegrown produce is where the party's at, and "organic" produce falls way short in comparison.

 

[NoahideHiker]

And is anyone surprised that researchers drew this conclusion. I have come to have a real distrust of the scientific community as a whole. It has become a huge, self serving business that seems to seek results that will propagate the field.

In the end, like the others have said, it's not the nutrition it's the absence of unnatural stuff I want. On top of that it's important to buy local organics. The stuff you get at the big stores is OK but it's picked way early and it ripens during shipping (usually hundreds of miles). The longer a crop can stay on the plant the more nutrition it will have. Plus you aren't contributing to the waste of energy to ship it and you support local growers.

 

[themadhair]

I have come to have a real distrust of the scientific community as a whole.

Why? You are essentially blaming the scientific community for your inability to differentiate between genuine scientific research and complete crap.

Why do a significant portion of the public believe that organic foods are substantially more healthy/nutritious than non-organically produced foods? Because of very clever advertising that appeals to the public ignorance. The idea that ‘more natural’=’better’ is simple enough for them to understand and buy into – it just happens to be utterly false.

So why are you taking a pot shot at the scientific community over this? Have you actually bothered to check what they are actually saying on this matter?

The article in the OP had this to say regarding the nutritional differences:
”A systematic review of 162 scientific papers published in the scientific literature over the last 50 years, however, found there was no significant difference.”

Take this paper for another example:

Nutritional quality of organic food: shades of grey or shades of green?

Consumer concern regarding possible adverse health effects of foods produced using intensive farming methods has led to considerable interest in the health benefits of organically-produced crops and animal products. There appears to be widespread perception amongst consumers that such methods result in foods of higher nutritional quality. The present review concludes that evidence that can support or refute such perception is not available in the scientific literature. A limited number of studies have compared the nutrient compositions of organically- and conventionally-produced crops, with a very small number of studies that have compared animal products (meat, milk and dairy products) produced under the two agricultural systems. Very few compositional differences have been reported, although there are reasonably consistent findings for higher nitrate and lower vitamin C contents of conventionally-produced vegetables, particularly leafy vegetables. Data concerning possible impacts on animal and human health of diets comprising organic or conventional produce are extremely sparse. Data from controlled studies in animal models, particularly within single species, are limited or poorly designed, and findings from these studies provide conflicting conclusions. There are no reports in the literature of controlled intervention studies in human subjects. Comparison of health outcomes in populations that habitually consume organically- or conventionally-produced foods are flawed by the large number of confounding factors that might contribute to any differences reported. If consumer perceptions regarding potential health benefits of organic foods are to be supported, more research of better quality is needed than that which is currently available.

But feel free to have a distrust regarding the scientific community. That you don’t know that they are saying should be a barrier to that distrust.

 

[Nepenthe]

I never thought the appeal of organic foods was due to some additional nutritional benefit. Whether they are or not I just try to buy local as much as possible- particularly when Whole Foods is a prime example of capitalistic excess at the expense of local producers.

The problem with the clever marketing strategy of labeling things "organic" is there's leeway as to what can or cannot be labelled organic. To get the USDA "Organic" seal 95% of the product must be grown without pesticides. A "Made with organic ingredients" label has to be 70% organic, and "Contains organic ingredients" less than 70% organic.

Also, chickens can be marketed as organic based solely on what they're fed. So the chickens might have an organic grain based diet while they're kept in a confinement house with little ability to move, cramped and covered in their own filth, transported to a processing plant where they're eloctrocuted and then slapped with a "certified organic" tag. So yes, there may be an incentive to buy organic as far as there being no pesticides or filler to the animal's diet, but the confinement, potential disease issues, and animal cruelty are still very much present in organics.

The Organic Center as well as research at UC Davis have both offered scientific evidence of the greater nutritional content of organics, while the Mayo Clinic, The American Diabetic Association and this recent study dispute it. The paper says nothing about pesticides though so that's an understandable reason to choose organics despite the lack of nutritional advantage.